Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28630886›Full record

ReviewJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2017

Review of the current status of radiation protection in diagnostic radiology in Africa.

Wilbroad Muhogora, Madan M Rehani

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Wilbroad MuhogoraTanzania Atomic Energy Commission, Arusha, Tanzania.
Madan M RehaniHarvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to review the available published studies from African countries on patient doses and medical radiation protection and identify strengths, weaknesses, and challenges. Papers on radiation doses to patients published until 2016 pertaining to studies in African countries were reviewed. Radiography, interventional radiology, computed tomography (CT), and mammography modalities were covered. In radiography, the entrance surface air kerma values were below the established diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) provided by the International Atomic Energy Agency, European Commission, and National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Patient and staff doses in interventional procedures were not on the higher side when compared with other published reports from developed countries. The dose length product values in CT in many situations were higher than established DRLs. In mammography, the variations of clinical image quality and dose to standard breast between African countries and other countries were insignificant. In conclusion, like in any continent, not all countries in Africa are active, but some have produced good results. The potential for optimization of radiation protection using simple and inexpensive techniques has been demonstrated. The lack of medical physicists is one of the important challenges.

Indexed as

diagnostic radiologymedical physicsradiation doses to patients in Africaradiation protection in Africa

Identifiers

PMID28630886
PMCPMC5468545

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.